More time on bike ≠ improved cycling efficiency

Thigh_burn

According to a new study, comparing cycling and running.

It's an interesting argument and will no doubt lead to lots of debate. I wonder though whether anyone on here has reduced their amount of time in the saddle, in favour of running and found that's helped their cycling?

hdow

Why can't they do research based on what happens in the real world? Cycle at a fixed cadence and power output or run at a given pace. Who cycles or runs like that? Its nice to be efficient but in races its better to be fast. No prizes for using the least oxygen per kg of body weight per kilometre.

Back to the question posed. Experience with triathletes is as follows. A triathlete with a running injury who reduces their run training who but adds in more cycling to retain training volume looses virtually no running pace or endurance when the injury has healed. When the situation is reversed cycling performance is noticeably reduced. This is from experience not a scientific study.

So don't expect running to help your cycling. Instead look at the mix of what you do on the bike if you want to improve

haydenm

Hdow wrote:

Why can't they do research based on what happens in the real world? Cycle at a fixed cadence and power output or run at a given pace. Who cycles or runs like that? Its nice to be efficient but in races its better to be fast. No prizes for using the least oxygen per kg of body weight per kilometre.

Back to the question posed. Experience with triathletes is as follows. A triathlete with a running injury who reduces their run training who but adds in more cycling to retain training volume looses virtually no running pace or endurance when the injury has healed. When the situation is reversed cycling performance is noticeably reduced. This is from experience not a scientific study.

So don't expect running to help your cycling. Instead look at the mix of what you do on the bike if you want to improve

I find when I run alot I spend more time at high heart rates and it helps me when I'm hillclimbing on the bike for example, a lot of that will be mental though. Also, the running isn't replacing cycling, it's just added in around my cycling so it's hardly surprising that I'm generally fitter. It just feels like I get a disproportionate benefit from doing a few runs per week compared to the time and effort it takes to go out for a 5km

imposter2.0

I stopped reading at 'Lance Armstrong'...

cookeeemonster

Imposter wrote:

I stopped reading at 'Lance Armstrong'...

" By the time he was 28, Armstrong reportedly needed 8 percent less energy to generate a given power output on his bike than when he was 21."

hmmmmmmm......

slowbike

I hadn't bothered clicking on the link but yes - a 200x study into LA ? That's worth jack now then isn't it.

Quite frankly, any study that looks at professional athletes is not necessarily going to be directly comparable to your amateur sportsman - too many variables - No 1 is that professional athletes give more time to training. For us mortals, more time training at whatever our chosen sport is = better/faster at it.

I'll worry about energy efficiency when I can devote more time to cycling and get (back) to being 28 years old ... until then - more time will equal faster...

Alex_Simmons/RST

Thigh_burn wrote:

According to a new study, comparing cycling and running.

It's an interesting argument and will no doubt lead to lots of debate. I wonder though whether anyone on here has reduced their amount of time in the saddle, in favour of running and found that's helped their cycling?

There's not really anything new or surprising in this finding.

Cycling has a very fixed range of motion so it is no surprise that training over the short term doesn't impact gross efficiency. There isn't a lot of solid longitudinal data but efficiency can change a little over many years, even so professional cyclists are only marginally more efficient on average than trained recreational/club level cyclists (which is why the result should come as no surprise). One possible mechanism for increasing efficiency is the intra-conversion of muscle fibres to adopt more slow twitch fibre properties, which occurs when consistently performing large volumes of training over long periods (many years).

Running on the other hand involves much larger degrees of motion freedom and as a result running technique plays a greater role in efficiency level and performance.

mrfpb

Hdow wrote:

Why can't they do research based on what happens in the real world? Cycle at a fixed cadence and power output or run at a given pace. Who cycles or runs like that? Its nice to be efficient but in races its better to be fast. No prizes for using the least oxygen per kg of body weight per kilometre.

Runners from Roger Bannister onwards have found that a consistent pace is crucial to performance. Bannister worked it outon the way to doing his 4min mile, and as a medical student,was probably the first athlete to take a medical/scientific approach to training and performance. The Brownlees both claim to prefer a consisitent 10,000m pace in triathlons that would not work in a tactical race in a bunch. I'm not sure how pro cyclists pace a time trial though.

Alex_Simmons/RST

mrfpb wrote:

Hdow wrote:

Why can't they do research based on what happens in the real world? Cycle at a fixed cadence and power output or run at a given pace. Who cycles or runs like that? Its nice to be efficient but in races its better to be fast. No prizes for using the least oxygen per kg of body weight per kilometre.

Runners from Roger Bannister onwards have found that a consistent pace is crucial to performance. Bannister worked it outon the way to doing his 4min mile, and as a medical student,was probably the first athlete to take a medical/scientific approach to training and performance. The Brownlees both claim to prefer a consisitent 10,000m pace in triathlons that would not work in a tactical race in a bunch. I'm not sure how pro cyclists pace a time trial though.

Much research is aimed at understanding the underlying physiology and/or physiological responses to specific interventions or how (or whether) it changes with a specific variable. It will typically have a narrow focus and by necessity requires control of variables in order to isolate relevant correlations, or determine whether they exist at all.

The fact that such research may or may not also have practical value to cycling training or racing is rarely a consideration. It's purpose is to extend human knowledge of how our bodies work. What is done with such knowledge isn't up to the researcher.

That said, there is also research conducted on "real world" performance. It's just a matter of searching for it.

Ben6899

Running definitely helps to improve my "fitness", but too much time off the bike to spend running... well that has a negative impact on my cycling, I find.

I think sheer time in the saddle is not to be underrated in its effectiveness.

As for running at a constant pace... much more comfortable to do than at a varying pace.